Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

This case addressed the difference between two claims that arose from the same accident and that were based on the same medical care: a medical malpractice claim and a failure to secure informed consent claim. In 2017, Mari Davies was in a single-car rollover accident. When Davies arrived at the E.R. she had hypertension, high blood pressure, left shoulder pain, neck pain, chest pain, abdominal pain, a headache, and some tingling in her left arm. She also had preexisting kidney stones, diverticulosis, pneumonia, and diabetes. Dr. Michael Hirsig evaluated her as soon as she arrived in the E.R.: consulted with a neurosurgeon, ordered tests and prescribed medicines. Dr. Hirsig diagnosed Davies with a stable cervical spine fracture. He determined that she had no “neurological symptoms.” Davies visited her primary care provider the next day. While in his office, Davies exhibited stroke symptoms. She was immediately transported to the E.R. at Providence St. Peter Hospital. She had, indeed, suffered a stroke. It was later determined Davies’ stroke was caused by a vertebral artery dissection (VAD) that occurred at the time of the accident. A VAD is typically detected by a computed tomography angiography (CTA) scan. It was undisputed that the E.R. doctor who treated Davies when she first presented to the hospital, did not order a CTA scan. Davies filed suit against MultiCare Health System, the parent corporation of Good Samaritan Hospital, alleging (1) medical negligence, (2) failure to obtain informed consent, and (3) corporate negligence. On cross motions for partial summary judgment, the trial court dismissed Davies’ informed consent claim. The trial court found no material factual dispute related to the informed consent claim and dismissed it as unsupported by the law. Davies’ medical negligence claims proceeded to trial. The jury found that none of the health care provider defendants were negligent. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding facts in the record sufficient to support an informed consent claim. The Washington Supreme Court adhered to prior decisions holding that in general, a patient cannot bring an informed consent claim where, as here, the physician ruled out the undiagnosed condition entirely. View "Davies v. MultiCare Health Sys." on Justia Law

The question presented for the Mississippi Supreme Court in this case “boils down to one of statutory interpretation:” whether plaintiff Crystal Bufkin was “legally entitled to recover” damages from her employer under the uninsured motorist statute, Mississippi Code Section 83-11-101(1) (Supp. 2021). The Supreme Court previously held that employees are not legally entitled to recover from their employers and thus could not make a claim under uninsured motorist coverages. Bufkin acknowledged that precedent precluded her claim, but she argued Medders v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 623 So. 2d 979 (Miss. 1993 )and its progeny were wrongly decided because the uninsured motorist law should be liberally construed in her favor. The Supreme Court concluded it already rejected the arguments Bufkin presented here, and declined to overrule Medders. View "Bufkin v. Geico Insurance Agency, Inc." on Justia Law

The instant appeal is from a judgment of dismissal following a successful demurrer by respondents Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier-CA, LLC, and Rasier, LLC (collectively, the Uber entities) to a complaint filed against them by appellants, Jane Doe Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (collectively, the Jane Does). The Jane Does were abducted and then sexually assaulted by assailants who lured the Jane Does into their vehicles by posing as authorized drivers of the Uber entities’ ridesharing app. The complaint alleged the Uber business model created the risk that criminals would employ this scheme, then failed to protect potential victims from it. The trial court sustained the demurrer to the operative complaint and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.   The Second Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court reasoned that the Uber entities were not in a special relationship with the Jane Does that would give rise to a duty to protect the Jane Does against third-party assaults, or to warn them about the same. The complaint thus did not allege actionable nonfeasance. Nor does the complaint allege actionable misfeasance. Although it is foreseeable that third parties could abuse the platform in this way, such crime must be a “necessary component” of the Uber app or the Uber entities’ actions in order for the Uber entities to be held liable, absent a special relationship between the parties. The trial court correctly concluded that the Uber entities cannot be held liable for causing or contributing to the Jane Does’ harm. View "Jane Doe No. 1 v. Uber Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

An automobile driven by defendant Patrick McLaughlan, struck plaintiff Jerry Harwood while Harwood was leaving his work shift and crossing the street to an employer provided parking lot. After an unsuccessful attempt to recover workers compensation benefits for his injuries, Harwood filed a lawsuit against the driver and his employer. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit against the employer for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Harwood appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. After review, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that because an employer may have assumed the duty to provide a safer crosswalk for access to an employer designated parking lot, the employee pled a claim for relief which is legally possible. The trial court's dismissal was premature. View "Harwood v. Ardagh Group" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed this appeal from a decision of the superior court denying the City of Bangor's motion for summary judgment in a personal injury suit brought by the estate of Albert Bean (the Estate), holding that an issue of fact remained as to the City's insurance coverage.Following Bean's death, his widow and the Estate filed a complaint against the City alleging negligence, wrongful death, and loss of consortium. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was immune from liability pursuant to the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 Me. Rev. Stat. 8101-8118, because it did not have insurance to cover the incident. The superior court denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the City failed to meet its burden of establishing that there was no insurance coverage. View "Estate of Bean v. City of Bangor" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the court of special appeals reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Irwin Industrial Tool Company in this wrongful death and product liability action brought by the Estate of Richard Pifer, holding that the grant of summary judgment based on the determination that there was not admissible evidence on which to challenge Irwin's request for summary judgment was erroneous.The Estate brought this action alleging that Irwin sold Strait-Line marking chalk that contained asbestos and caused Pifer's death from mesothelioma. Irwin filed a pretrial motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding an analysis of Strait-Line chalk by the Estate's expert that had results in a finding of asbestos. The circuit court granted the motion as to some of the evidence and then entered summary judgment for the Estate. The court of special appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence at issue was properly authenticated, and therefore, the circuit court abused its discretion in granting the Estate's motion in limine; and (2) the grant of summary judgment was erroneous. View "Irwin Industrial Tool v. Pifer" on Justia Law

Kansas City Officer (“Officer”) shot and killed the victim during a foot chase. Family members of the victim filed suit and the district court concluded that the Officer was entitled to both qualified and official immunity. In addition to contesting the grant of summary judgment on appeal, Plaintiffs argued they should receive a trial on their claims against the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners and the other municipal officials named in their complaint.   In evaluating the family’s excessive-force claim against the Officer, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court explained that the key issue requires answering whether the officer’s actions violated a constitutional right and then whether the right was clearly established. The court reasoned that the Supreme Court has explained that “the focus” of the clearly-established-right inquiry “is on whether the officer had fair notice that [his] conduct was unlawful.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018). Here, “judged against the backdrop of the law at the time of the conduct,” a reasonable officer would not have had “fair notice” that shooting the victim under these circumstances violated the Fourth Amendment.     Additionally, to prevail in this case under Kisela, the family would need to establish “the right’s contours were sufficiently definite that any reasonable official in the defendant’s shoes would have understood that he was violating it.” Here, the family failed to show that the Officer acted in bad faith or with malice. Finally, there is not enough evidence to find that the municipal defendants liable under a deliberate indifference theory. View "N.S. v. Kansas City Board of Police" on Justia Law

Icylene Pearce, as the personal representative of the estate of her late husband, Dewitt Ray Pearce, appealed a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of the defendants in her wrongful-death action against the estate of Daniel Lea Day, deceased, and Enterprise Leasing Company-South Central, LLC ("Enterprise"). Dewitt was killed when the vehicle Day was driving collided head-on with Dewitt's vehicle. Pearce's appeal concerned the defense that Day suffered a sudden loss of consciousness before the collision. Pearce objected to the trial court's exclusion of certain evidence that she believed related to that defense, and she claimed that, even without considering that evidence, the trial court should have ordered a new trial. Finding no reversible error, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "Pearce v. The Estate of Daniel Lea Day, et al." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the superior court entered in favor of Defendants in two consolidated medical malpractice cases, holding that the hearing justice did not err in finding that Defendants owed no duty to Plaintiffs.The plaintiffs in the first case were the parents of Yendee, who was ultimately confirmed to possess Hemoglobin Constant Spring trait and two gene deletion alpha thalassemia trait. Plaintiffs filed suit individually and on behalf of Yendee, alleging that Defendants were negligent in failing to properly diagnose, test, treat, and care for Plaintiffs. After the case was returned to the superior court Yendee, having reached the age of majority, filed an individual complaint against various defendants. The hearing justice granted summary judgment for Defendants in both cases. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there is no duty owed to a child born with physical defects who alleges that, because of negligence, his parents either decided to conceive him in ignorance of the risk of impairment or were deprived of information that would have caused them to terminate the pregnancy. View "Ho-Rath v. Corning Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant, a severely disabled child whose congenital abnormalities were undetected during his mother’s pregnancy, sued various medical providers for wrongful life. The California Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”) asserted a lien on Appellant’s settlement to recover what DHCS paid for his medical care through the state’s Medi-Cal program, and the trial court awarded DHCS the full amount of the lien.   The Second Appellate District reversed, rejecting Appellant’s contentions that DHCS’s lien is preempted by federal law and that there is no substantial evidence that Appellant’s settlement included payments for past medical expenses. However, the court held that the trial court erred by failing to distinguish between past medical expenses and other damages.   The court concluded that the provisions of the Medi-Cal Act permitting DHCS to impose a lien on Appellant’s tort recovery are not preempted by federal law. Further, the court concluded that the trial court did not err by concluding that Appellant’s settlement included past medical expenses. The court reasoned that the Welfare and Institutions Code provides that DHCS “shall have a right to recover . . . the reasonable value of benefits” provided to a MediCal beneficiary, and it further provides that the court, not the Medi-Cal beneficiary, determines what portion of a settlement is fairly allocated to satisfy DHCS’s lien.  However, it does not appear that the trial court determined which portion of Appellant’s settlement was attributable to past medical expenses, thus the court remanded the trial court to apportion the settlement accordingly. View "Daniel C. v. White Memorial Medical Center" on Justia Law